linux-kernel - Re: NULL pointer dereference in pick_next_task

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20191107192753.GA55494@google.com>
Date:   Thu, 7 Nov 2019 19:27:53 +0000
From:   Quentin Perret <qperret@...gle.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@...tuozzo.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        aaron.lwe@...il.com, valentin.schneider@....com, mingo@...nel.org,
        pauld@...hat.com, jdesfossez@...italocean.com,
        naravamudan@...italocean.com, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
        dietmar.eggemann@....com, juri.lelli@...hat.com,
        rostedt@...dmis.org, bsegall@...gle.com, mgorman@...e.de,
        kernel-team@...roid.com, john.stultz@...aro.org
Subject: Re: NULL pointer dereference in pick_next_task_fair

On Thursday 07 Nov 2019 at 19:43:56 (+0100), Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> But you mean something like:
> 
> 	for (class = prev->sched_class; class; class = class->next) {
> 		if (class->balance(rq, rf))
> 			break;
> 	}
> 
> 	put_prev_task(rq, prev);
> 
> 	for_each_class(class) {
> 		p = class->pick_next_task(rq);
> 		if (p)
> 			return p;
> 	}
> 
> 	BUG();
> 
> like?

Right, something like that, though what I had was basically doing the
pull from within the pick_next_task_*() functions directly, like we were
doing before. I'm now seeing how easy it is to get this wrong, and that
even good-looking code in this area can be broken in very subtle ways,
so I didn't feel comfortable refactoring again so close to rc7. If you
feel more confident, I'm more than happy to test a patch implemeting the
above :)

> I had convinced myself we didn't need that, but that DL to RT case is
> pesky and might require it after all.

Yep, I don't see a way to avoid iterating all classes to do the balance,
one way or another ...

Thanks,
Quentin